Questions to consider

[Bfair]

The topic of 7.10(d), unrelaxed action, and a runner's attempt to return to touch a missed base have been discussed in great detail lately. It seems evident that there are issues that should receive greater attention by those issuing official interpretation. Some related questions I'd hope Carl may consider for his next discussion with the PBUC could include:

1. Can an appeal occur during continuous playing action if the runner is making no attempt to correct his baserunning error?
   
   R3, R1 with 2 out. B5 hits dropping line drive toward F8.
   R3 tags (thinking there are less than 2 outs) while R1, who was stealing on the pitch, advances and misses 2B en route to 3B. F8 short hops the ball and throws to F4 calling for an appeal of R1's miss. Can the defense appeal immediately during continuous live ball play to obtain a 3rd out before R3 scores?
   
   
   We know this is possible under Fed rule, but there is difference of opinion in OBR.
   I feel once the runner has not attempted immediate return, he is subject to appeal.
   Carl has differed by saying an appeal could not occur during coninuous action, and would not be recognized until all runners stopped on a base.
   
   
2. When is a player who has passed a base and not touched it considered, by rule, to have "missed" that base?
   I'd think that after he has not touched it, but has been given credit for "passing" the base such that he could no longer be retired as a force, then he has also "missed" that base. Afterall, if tagged out before acquiring the base he would still be liable to appeal for an advantageous 4th out for the force, correct? Yet, others have argued he has not "missed" the base until he leaves the immediate area of the base---defining that as a 26' diameter (comparable to the size of the plate area).
   
   
3. Is a player who has missed a base, is within the immediate area of the base required to make an attempt to return to correct his error, or can the defense appeal his miss if he makes no attempt to return to correct his baserunning infraction but stays in the area nearby the base?
   IOW, must a fielder chase him to apply a tag since he is not returning?
   I would think not. If the player attempts no return, I'd consider him liable to be putout through appeal.
   
   
4. Can an appeal be upheld if a runner is returning to touch a missed base if the runner is not within the immediate area of the base?
   In situation #1, what if the runner just prior to reaching 3B is alerted by his coach to return to touch 2B, but is still well removed from 2B, can an appeal at 2B be upheld, or must the runner be played upon and tagged? The Fed states that if the runner initiates his attempt to return prior to the appeal initiating, then he must be tagged.
   
   I am undecisive regarding this. Although the runner's attempt to return may have tipped-off the defense regarding his original miss of the base, I also feel the runner should have attempted to immediately correct his baserunning error when it occurred or else be at liability of being putout through appeal.
   
   What occurs if the runner attempts return, then stops and reverses when the defense attempts a tag? Should the defense be required to chase him? Is the appeal then going to be upheld by tagging the base? I'd think so, but why put the defense through this fiasco when the runner, in fact, committed the orginal infraction and cared less at that time to correct his error?
   
   What if 1B was the missed base, and another runner on 3B is attempting to score during this fiasco? If they play on the runner scoring, would the appeal right be lost? I'd think not; it's all part of continuous play---possibly! What if the runner missing 1B had heard the defense discussing his missed base after continuous action had stopped, and then broke to correct his error before any appeal attempt initiated? Should the defense be required to play upon a "well removed" runner attempting return to a missed base when it could mean another runner could score? Or should the defense be allowed to merely touch the missed base while holding the ball and making the appeal?

Although my vote doesn't count, it goes to allowing appeal once a runner committing a baserunning infraction has shown no "immediate" attempt to correct his baserunning error.

It seems to me once a runner misses a base and makes no attempt to immediately correct that error, he should be at liability of being putout by appeal---regardless if he later attempts to return. The defense should not be put at a possible disadvantage with regards to other runners. Still, I realize that all rules don't currently support that position, and I'll abide by existing rule. But, there still remain areas that are not well addressed by rule or official interpretation.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[brumey1107]

Freix -

With regard to example #1 provided. Even if F4 calls for an appeal during continuous play and steps on second base with the ball in his/her possession would R1 not be declared out at 2B anyway since it is a force play?

Thus in this case wouldnÂ’t the defense appealing during continuous live ball play to obtain a 3rd out before R3 scores be a moot point and not necessary?

As a new member I appreciate you putting out questions and examples to review and consider. I find this site an excellent place to learn and enhance my knowledge.

Any comments to my understanding of the first example are certainly welcomed by all.

Thank you.

[greymule]

Only in Fed would that accidental force play (not actually an appeal) be recognized, and expect that oddity to disappear next year.

Generally, I agree with Freix's logic on these plays, but good logic and correct rulings don't necessarily go together. To me, if a runner has missed a base and is not attempting to return, an appeal should be recognized during continuous action. That's what I'd call now, but I'd certainly like to see definitive rulings.

We've been debating whether that accidental force actually does stay in effect until the next pitch. If it does, I think it is possible to concoct a theoretical play in which, through intentional walks and blown pickoff attempts, a runner could be picked off and be not only the second out but also the third out on the accidental force play for missing a base from his previous at bat. The umpire would then have to determine whether the pickoff or the accidental force constituted the third out of the inning. This would be important, because the accidental force as the third out could nullify nine runs.

[Rich Ives]

Amother vote that doesn't count, but

A runner scrambling back to re-touch after a caught line drive/fly ball is both out during continuous action and he need not be tagged, no matter how close he is to his base.

Yet somehow if we make it a "missed base" we get into great debates on both the timing and the need to tag the runner if he is "close enough" and/or "scrambling back"

These are both appeals. Why treat them differently?